Tag: trump

Uncategorized

The US military aggression in Venezuela and the abduction of Maduro: global reactions and Western ambivalence

On January 3, 2026, US President Trump announced via his social media account that a special operation ‘captured’ ( a euphemism for abducted) President Maduro of Venezuela and his wife and flew them over to the United States to face criminal charges for engaging in ‘narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the US’. The opening hearing took place on 5th January at a US Federal Court, with both Maduro and his wife defiantly claiming that they were kidnapped and not guilty, and that he remains the President of Venezuela. One can foresee a protracted legal battle ahead.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/03/world/americas/maduro-photo-trump.html

Trump was candid about his real intentions. The US administration would ‘run’ Venezuela until a viable and peaceful transfer of power to local authorities took place. Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, would become, proclaimed Trump, the beneficiary of US technical and engineering prowess as leading energy companies embark on fixing the country’s dilapidated oil infrastructure. Wishful thinking? Probably.

Note that Trump left the Maduro regime intact, with the Vice President now constitutionally mandated to become acting President in the absence of Maduro. Trump also dismissed the possibility of the Nobel Prize-winning Machado leading the transition process, while failing to mention González, the Presidential candidate. This begs the question. What transition?

How has the global community reacted to these stunning developments? One does not need to be a legal expert to realize that the US military aggression in Venezuela that led to the abduction of Maduro and his wife is a brazen violation of international law and the UN charter. It also left at least 40 Venezuelans dead, including significant damage to private property and infrastructure. Yet, European leaders – supposedly the champions of international law and a rules-based global order have, once again, generally failed to acknowledge that in an unambiguous fashion. They are petrified to upset Trump and sought refuge in mealy-mouthed statements and carefully crafted obfuscation. Here are some notable examples, starting with the UK, which claims to enjoy a ‘special relationship’ with the USA.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK will discuss the “evolving situation” in Venezuela with U.S. counterparts while noting Britain will “shed no tears” about the demise of Maduro’s “regime”. This interview with Starmer from the British TV channel ITV is riveting to watch.

The EU expressed concern at the developments and urged respect for international law, even as it noted that Maduro “lacks legitimacy.”

French President Emmanuel Macron called for 2004 presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia to lead a political transition. On the other hand, France said the U.S. operation undermined international law, and no solution to Venezuela’s crisis can be imposed externally.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Maduro had “led his country to ruin,” but called the U.S. action legally “complex.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was the only major European leader to side with the U.S., arguing its military action in Venezuela was “legitimate” and “defensive.”

What about Canada? Well…

Prime Minister Mark Carney said on X that, “Canada has not recognized Maduro’s illegitimate regime since the 2018 electoral fraud. The Canadian government welcomes the opportunity now available to the Venezuelan people to access freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity.”

He added, “True to its longstanding commitment to the rule of law, sovereignty, and human rights, Canada calls on all parties to respect international law. We support the sovereign right of the Venezuelan people to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society.”

And Australia?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has responded to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces. “The Australian government is monitoring the situation and will provide assistance to any Australians in Venezuela,” Mr Albanese said. “We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy to secure regional stability and prevent escalation. “We continue to support international law.”

These mild and conditional utterances by Western leaders on what is clearly a breach of international law contrast sharply with what China and Russia had to say.

China delivered a strongly worded message to the United States on Monday (5th January) at an “emergency” meeting of the UN Security Council, calling on Washington to abide by international law, end its illusion that it is the world’s police force and court, and immediately release Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Russia’s United Nations ambassador Vasily Nebenzya denounced US actions in Venezuela and urged the immediate release of detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a United Nations Security Council session in New York on Monday, January 5.

India, on the other hand, appeared to adopt the Western strategy of obfuscation. Thus:

India broke its silence on the US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with a carefully worded statement that expressed “deep concern” but conspicuously avoided naming Washington or condemning the military strikes that seized the Latin American leader.

What about Venezuela’s regional neighbours? As expected, regional divisions emerged and reflected the ideological proclivities of different countries.

Argentine President Javier Milei, Trump’s ideological soulmate, characterized (the USA) as supporting “democracy, the defense of life, freedom, and property.”

“On the other side,” …are those accomplices of a narco-terrorist and bloody dictatorship that has been a cancer for our region.”

Other right-wing leaders in South America similarly seized on Maduro’s ouster to declare their ideological affinity with Trump.

In Ecuador, conservative President Daniel Noboa issued a stern warning for all followers of Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s mentor and the founder of the Bolivarian revolution: “Your structure will completely collapse across the entire continent.”

In Chile, where a presidential election last month marked by fears over Venezuelan immigration brought down the leftist government, far-right President-elect José Antonio Kast hailed the U.S. raid as “great news for the region.”

Left-wing presidents in Latin America — including Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Chile’s Gabriel Boric, and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro — expressed grave concerns over what they saw as U.S. bullying.

Lula said the raid set “an extremely dangerous precedent.” Sheinbaum warned it “jeopardizes regional stability.” Boric said it “violated an essential pillar of international law.” Petro called it “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America.”

In sum, global reaction to Maduro’s abduction by the US has been quite diverse, but one is struck by the muted response of Europe and other leaders from the West. They will face a stern test if Trump follows through on his threat to invade Greenland and forcibly take it away from Denmark. Certainly, the Danish intelligence service, traditionally a close American ally within the framework of NATO, is so worried that it has officially designated the United States as a ‘security risk’.  

Uncategorized

‘From one nobel laureate to another’: the embarrassing naivete of Yunus

Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and currently Chief Adviser of the Bangladesh Interim Government, could not contain his proclivity for both publicity and magnanimity when he learned that a Venezuelan politician, Ms. Maria Corina Machado, had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025. Bangladesh’s leading English language daily, the Daily Star, reported that Yunus was effusive in his praise of Machado. The congratulatory message that he sent reads as follows.

“I extend my hearty congratulations to María Corina Machado on receiving the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous fight for democracy in her beloved Venezuela,” he said in a congratulatory message.

Machado has faced oppression with steadfast resolve, never wavering in her commitment to a freer and more just future for her country and her people, the message read.

As the Nobel Committee rightly stated: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended — with words, with courage, and with determination.”

She has dared to imagine a better world and worked tirelessly to make it so, the message added.

There is, unfortunately, a contentious and even dark side to Machado, the apparently fearless fighter for democracy in Venezuela. She happens to be a pro-Zionist, pro-Trump, far-right politician who is happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with notorious Islamophobic racists, such as Marie le Pen of France and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands. This prompted CAIR – a leading Muslim organization – to issue the following proclamation.

“We strongly disagree with the Nobel Prize committee’s decision to award this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado, a supporter of Israel’s racist Likud Party who earlier this year delivered remarks at a conference of European fascists, including Geert Wilders and Marie Le Pen, which openly called for a new Reconquista, referencing the ethnic cleansing of Spanish Muslims and Jews in the 1500s.

“We call on Ms. Machado to renounce her support for the Likud Party and anti-Muslim fascism in Europe. If she refuses to do so, the Nobel Prize committee should reconsider its decision, which has undermined its own reputation. An anti-Muslim bigot and supporter of European fascism would have no place being mentioned alongside the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other worthy winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

“The Nobel Peace Prize committee should instead recognize an honoree who has shown moral consistency by bravely pursuing justice for all people, such as one of the students, journalists, activists, medical professionals who have risked their careers and even their lives to oppose the crime of our time: the genocide in Gaza.”

In her own region of Latin America, the reaction to her winning the award was mixed. As AA reports:

“The Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado on Friday drew mixed reactions in Latin America, with some leaders offering praise, strong condemnation by others, Mexico choosing to remain silent.

The announcement of the award had some pointing to her past rhetoric and actions, which were characterized as violent or supportive of foreign intervention.”

Machado’s Trumpian loyalty became evident when she dedicated her award to “the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause.” At a time when there was feverish speculation and intense lobbying for Trump to get the 2025 Nobel Prize for his ostensible role as global peace maker, Machado – the seemingly surprise winner of 2025 – made sure that Trump noted her subservience.

Given the controversy surrounding Machado, why did Yunus decide to issue such fulsome praise for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner? What was his bevy of advisers doing? Alas, this represents embarrassing naivete on the part of Yunus and dereliction of duty on the part of his advisers. Yunus, given his age, is well past his prime and does not seem to engage in due diligence before making public proclamations on global issues. Sadly, someone who heads the government of a Muslim majority country ends up supporting an anti-Muslim racist. Yunus could have simply kept quiet, just as the President of Mexico did.

Uncategorized

Trump tariffs and the US-China trade war

Source: Financial Times

President Trump and his loyalists are true believers in the omnipotence of tariffs. They believe such taxes on imports will deliver economic nirvana to Americans. Tariff-jumping companies – both of US parentage and beyond – will return to US shores to jump-start manufacturing and create much-needed jobs, especially for the residents of the American ‘red states’.  Revenues from higher tariffs will fill the coffers of the Treasury enabling Trump to engage in pork-barrelling and funding pro-rich tax cuts.

Trump and his acolytes despise bilateral trade deficits. Such deficits reflect an underlying malaise: tthe rest of the world is allegedly ‘ripping off’ the US. Hence, the idea is to ‘carpet bomb’ hundreds of countries with punitive tariffs with China becoming a particular target of opprobrium. The global effective tariff rate is now the highest in the world since the turn of the 20th century.

While countries such as Vietnam have capitulated by offering to implement zero tariffs on American goods and services, and while some long-term allies, such as Australia, have offered no retaliation, China has taken a different approach. It has engaged in an active trade war with the USA by imposing retaliatory tariffs – see Exhibit 1 – and has announced complementary restrictions on American companies doing business with China.

Exhibit 1

Source: New York Times, 11 April, 2025

Which party will prevail in this clash of two titans of global commerce? To start with, Trump has blinked, despite his asinine proclamation that various countries of the world are prepared to ‘kiss his ass’. (warning: distasteful video content). He has been humbled by developments in global financial and bond markets. Stock market prices have declined sharply in response to the Trump tariffs. More importantly, one detects a restive bond market with returns on long-term US Treasury bonds rising sharply to 5 percent.

This has ominous implications for US borrowing costs as well as the cost of financing sovereign bonds in other parts of the world. Trump was forced to engage in strategic retreat by imposing a ’90 day’ pause on tariffs worldwide with the conspicuous exception of China. But…the Chinese authorities must have noted, in common with others across the world, that Trump’s seemingly invincible aura has been tarnished.  

Furthermore, many of the supposed benefits of the Trump tariffs represent wishful thinking rather than a pragmatic assessment of likely outcomes. Thus, the idea of tariff-jumping companies relocating to the USA is far-fetched, given that this is a process that takes time and relies on a predictable tariff regime. Trump has shown that the trajectory of tariffs under his regime will be highly erratic shifting with shifting economic and political circumstances.

The notion that tariffs will yield a revenue bonanza for the US government also ignores empirical regularities. Many decades ago, economist Arthur Laffer discovered the Laffer curve on the tax-revenue relationship: very low taxes lead to very low revenue collection, but very high taxes also have the same result. The Laffer curve is valid for the tariff-revenue relationship as well. At current prohibitive rates, the Trump tariffs are unlikely to yield a revenue bonanza – see Exhibit 2 – as the ‘volume effect’ of import compression will more than likely offset the ‘value effect’ of higher import duties.

Exhibit 2

Source: https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/tariffs-have-a-laffer-curve-too/

Once again, the Chinese authorities are likely to conclude that the incidence of the Laffer curve will prevent the Trump administration from building a war chest that it can draw on in its trade war with China.

Other factors at play put China at a strategic advantage vis-a-vis the USA.

China is no longer a country populated by ‘peasants’ as the American Vice President JD Vance would like to believe. It is now at the forefront of new technologies, ranging across renewable energy, electric cars, robotics, and AI. It no longer relies on cheap imports flooding the US market. Thus, China has undertaken both product and market diversification of its exports. In any case, China has a vast domestic market in which consumption growth is now the highest in the world led by millions of millenials – see Exhibit 3a. This deflates the oft-noted view that the overly centralized Chinese economic system over-invests and under-consumes. China is certainly politically centralized, but this is combined with a radically decentralized economic system that operates at the mayoral level. This is the ‘new China playbook’. (see Exhibit 3b)

Exhibit 3a and 3b–Consumption growth and the new China playbook

China also has a tight grip on rare earth minerals that are critical to the US tech and defense industries. One must not forget too that Elon Musk – the richest man in the world and one of Trump’s main supporters – has heavily invested in China to produce and export Tesla EVs. China, if it really wanted to be mean-spirited, could exploit these US-specific vulnerabilities.

China, as Mahbubani often points out, is the ‘oldest continuous civilization’. Deeply held notions of national humiliation by Western powers in the past (1840-1949) have shaped China’s outlook on contemporary international relations. A civilization is unlikely to be upstaged by an upstart Western power.

One should not, of course, paint a rosy picture in which China wins, and the USA loses in this trade war. Both countries will have bloody noses and will suffer a great deal of pain, as the Yale Budget Lab points out. Other model-driven estimates suggest that the USA will suffer more socio-economic losses relative to China – see Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4

A US-China trade war will unfortunately impose considerable collateral damage to the rest of the world. Low- and middle-income countries are likely to suffer the most and will become the victims of this US-led, self-inflicted damage to a rules-based global trading system. Even worse, the putative trade war could lead to a catastrophic conflict on a global scale.